Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for pseudoscience? (injection, heroin, suspect)

[elnina]

Originally Posted by notnamed

I have a neighbor couple, both with college degrees.

You are confusing education with intelligence, common sense and/or general knowledge.

[notnamed]

Originally Posted by elnina

You are confusing education with intelligence, common sense and/or general knowledge.

Well this was the root question:
"How have we as a society managed to produce educated people who..."

Is there something that our K-20 education system can do differently to mitigate this?

[richrf]

Most of the pseudo-science that is produced comes from so-called scientists.

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

A better question would be, how do self-proclaimed intelligent people fall for all of the bought and paid for "scientific research" clap-trap. Maybe because they belong to the clique?

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by blueherons

A lot of smart people have no common sense.

Yes....that's what people with less formal education say, but I've know a lot of educated WITH common sense and a lot of people less educated who don't have common sense either. The two don't always happen inversely. - God doesn't give you one when you lack the other! Some people are doubly blessed and others doubly cursed.

[notnamed]

Originally Posted by richrf

Most of the pseudo-science that is produced comes from so-called scientists.

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

A better question would be, how do self-proclaimed intelligent people fall for all of the bought and paid for "scientific research" clap-trap. Maybe because they belong to the clique?

There's nothing wrong with challenging ideas. It's the very basis of the scientific method.

However, if you are making extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence. The idea that the entire scientific community is bought by special interests and therefore some two bit spiritual healing website has more credibility is a rather extraordinary claim.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by notnamed

There's nothing wrong with challenging ideas. It's the very basis of the scientific method.

However, if you are making extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence. The idea that the entire scientific community is bought by special interests and therefore some two bit spiritual healing website has more credibility is a rather extraordinary claim.

First of most research is never challenged because there is no money or fame in it. This has been documented.

Then there is the clique gathering around the castle to protect itself.

Then there is the science police that quickly marginalizes and ostracizes anyone who stands up to the self-proclaimed Elitists.

And finally, we are talking about outrageous lying and fudging within the hallow grounds of science.

If anyone is making extraordinary claims it is the OP, who would never apologize, being a self-proclaimed holder of the truth.

You figure the OP has a point? Typical science.

BTW, I like the claim that Stamford is a two bit spiritual university. You figure on starting a witch hunt?

[notnamed]

Um, no. Point is that ideas need to be challenged. But what you are proposing as an alternative should have more evidence.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by notnamed

Um, no. Point is that ideas need to be challenged. But what you are proposing as an alternative should have more evidence.

Ok. I'm challenging the [snip] OP.

I suppose there is plenty of science behind it? Ok, let's see the evidence.

[notnamed]

There is plenty of science behind autism not being caused by vaccines yet many people are taken in by celebrities who say otherwise.

Why do people believe the celebrities with no evidence is basically the question.

Such fear for the well being of their children based on unsubstantiated claims, yet they happily expose their kids to second hand smoke.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

Of course it doesn't. But it is a logical conclusion that there should be some level of skepticism.

It's why the study itself needs to be examined, understood, discussed, as well as the mechanism of HOW the study gets published.. But too many people do not do this, I'd guess 99% of the public has never read a clinical trial or journal article about ANY of the vaccines.

And it is dangerous to form immobile opinions without doing so because the opinion, however well-intentioned, is UNINFORMED.

When the Wakefield study came out years ago (the first one, the original case study), the word "autism" is not mentioned in the study.

I went to the study because I wanted to read it myself and see what happened, fully expecting to believe everything that was being repeated in the media.

I was BEYOND shocked: The word is not in his study. You can't find it. His one observation was that those children that had disturbed gut flora had also had been given the MMR vaccine. It was an observation, with NO conclusion attached to it. It was anecdotal case studies of a number of his patients, never once mentioning autism.

It changed my view forever of how medical issues are reported in the news. I always go to the studies to find out what did/did not happen now. I don't trust the media. And what I believe is irrelevant. It is what is TRUE that matters.

You obviously missed something. At the beginning of the abstract, written by Wakefield and his partners themselves is this: "Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two)."

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la..._eventId=login

What's less known is that Wakefield was working on his own measles vaccine. For it to be accepted, he had to discredit the current vaccine, which had been in use for 30 years at the point of his "research". Instead, he created a monster. People became afraid of the MMR vaccine, and vaccine rates dropped, especially in Europe. In 2008-2011, there was a massive epidemic, especially in France.
Measles Elimination Efforts and 2008
Andrew Wakefield - the fraud investigation